Still finishing up some projects, and my wife is away on business this week, leaving me with very little time to reach the computer on the floor of my bedroom (for instance, I only have time to write this so long as Tanner stays interested in picking up the bits of cookie and dill pickle I diced up and tossed into the backyard), but I did want to direct those of you who haven’t heard it to the first half-hour or so of Monday’s Mark Levin show.
For longtime readers of this site, the message will sound quite familiar, dealing as it does with the importance of process in a constitutional republic, particularly as such processes obtain to the rule of law in a nation supposedly built around stable laws and not (as in tyrannies grand and petty) the whims of men.
From an interpretative stance — and you’ve no doubt read this from me before if you’ve been here for any length of time — how you get there matters. Which is to say, what it is you believe you are doing when you interpret informs and in the end provides the reasoning (such as it is) that justifies a declaration of “meaning,” in our system of jurisprudence manifesting itself in legal decisions, which of necessity are couched in an interpretation and application of law, though most often they are not.
Because our courts have, in addition to extending their authority to rule on matters not expressly in their purview, taken to doing what so many “interpreters,” freed from originalism or the intentionalist nature of any form or coherent activity identifying itself as interpretation, have done: become adept at reasoning backward from a preconceived end in order to justify that end legally by way of manipulation of language and the abnegation of intent — that is, rewriting the text by resignifying it to match their own ideological agendas. To wit, one can only claim to be “interpreting” in the first place if one acknowledges that the text under review was intended as a text and therefore imbued with intent, signified prior to engagement with it (with legal texts, there are specific conventions that are followed, deemed essential to the process, to make interpretative decisions more transparent and universally clear, namely, the dictate that the intent be readily gleaned from the text upon a superficial, “reasonable” standard, preventing intent not properly signified from holding sway in the legal sphere, assuring the polity that no “penumbras and emanations” will be cited, or that what has been insisted upon by legislators aren’t “taxes” somehow magically become taxes in the hands of a motivated rewriter of statutes, though that, too, has been discarded in practice); or to put it in the way I’ve always tried to explain it, process matters, how you get there matters, and if we allow the ends to justify the means, we are no longer a nation of laws but rather a nation of subjects and a select few philosopher kings pretending to hold sway in a republic that no longer exists.
And sadly, too many of us have accepted and even allowed to become institutionalized this brand of linguistic incoherence which, again as a matter of necessity, removes the will of individuals or groups of individuals to make meaning and grants control over that meaning to interpretive communities given, in the case of the courts, legal authority to declare with finality that meaning, regardless of how the original text was intended.
To be clear, it is crucial that legal texts be written clearly and their meaning — the intent behind the signifiers — made as obvious as is possible using a second order system of communication. But when such is not the case, it is the job of the courts to reject the texts and send them back to the legislature where the intent can be made clear through rewrites. Instead, the courts have decided that they can simply rewrite the statutes to “correct” the legislative failings — and in so doing, resignify the texts to fit their own desired outcomess and create their own meanings.
This is a form of intellectual theft, and it matters not what label is placed on it: textualism, eg., merely speaks to the legal convention some justices claim (rightly) needs to be followed, providing for plain meaning in statutes; and yet some use what is a conventional tool as a foundational guide for interpretation. And they are dead wrong to do so. And that’s because the convention is merely a way to assure that intention is easily and readily understandable — not, as others have incoherently claimed, to let “words” speak for themselves.
Words don’t speak. Sentient beings using language speak, and to do so, they often use words to signal their intentions. Texts can exist without an originary intent — people see duckling orgies in cloud formations, for instance — but all that means is that those doing the “interpreting” are mapping on to an accidental formation of squiggles or puffs or black bellied clouds their own signification. That is, they are intending to create from that text a meaning that doesn’t exist beyond their own desire to create it.
That’s not interpretation in the sense that we use the word, particularly in the legal realm. That’s merely creative writing, intellectual onanism, a pleasing game of mental associations that have no original linguistic intent. And the last thing we want as a republic is our rule of law to be governed by the creative, anti-sovereignty whims of, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
At any rate, Levin spends the first part of his show going over the necessity of process to the integrity of a republic and to the prevention of tyranny. I recommend it — especially for those of you who get confused when I go on about marks, signification, egret tracks, etc.
— Too many of whom claim to be conservative, and yet have wittingly or not adopted the left’s linguistic strategy — and it is a strategy — which insures that consensus meaning, collectivism, holds sway.
You can’t fight tyranny without destroying its sub rosa tools. The role of language is crucial, not “fundamentally unserious” or “pseudo-intellectual.”
Clown nose on.
You’re welcome.
If I get a chance later I’ll post some pics of the new house as it becomes habitable. In the meantime, I think Tanner is done with the pickle distraction, which means shrubs, dogs, and other things are in immanent danger of annihilation. Gotta run.
Team R owes the Supreme Court a big thank you hug for helping them get out of the lil corner they painted themselves into i think
Which in translation seems to come out “the end justifies the means” hf. And which in turn can only result in future decisions under that principle which those who benefit now will resent in their stint at being strapped to the wheel.
sdferr,
Exactly. HF seems to be the example that Jeff made in the post. How you get there matters; apparently to HF, winning is the thing, and how you get there DOESN’T matter.
how you get where?
Feets seems content to sit in the hand basket, as long as the ride is free.
Feets owes the Supreme Court a big thank you hug for codifying his delusion that an asshole is equal to a vagina.
griefer is happy the SCOTUS is following the same trajectory as it did in Roe v Wade or Lawrence (which reversed Bowers) … wait around until progressive elites make enough “evolving social standards” acceptable in a few urban areas, then find a “right” in the Constitution that isn’t there…
and such “right” guts an actual Amendment or two.
Hamster boy wasn’t raised right.
Maybe next time they could come up with a “right” that benefits more than a fraction of a fraction of the population.
the whole constitution thing became a joke after the Roberts whore court did their insanely whimsical fee tax pas de deux
failmerica is simply not a country what is committed to constitutional governance
so the ends matter now more than ever
and taking gay marriage off the table means Rs will have a whole lot better chance to get elected to the insanely autocratic and puissant office of the U.S. presidency
which may or may not be a good thing but my money says it beats an Obama Clinton Warren fascist dynasty
You say that like “homophobia” is the only arrow in the Democrats’ quiver. “War on Women” “anti-immigrant” “anti-science” “racists” they got a million of them. MSNBC standing by.
nevertheless
Puissant Rage Boi ‘feets wins his newly-invented right to ‘marry’; gender and kids’ best interests no longer matter. This new right he finds perfectly acceptable, no matter centuries of logic and unnecessary-to-qualify-legally-because-biology! “Naturally,we knew better than that” is upended for no good reason except the times, they are for the pleasure-seekings with no more meanings to find than that. Our new laws and new government are post-Constitutional, because now it is all about animal husbandry, keeping the herd manageable and happy, no more than that.
Bottoms up!
the worst case scenario here is we have another ruling what says that in America we treat people equally
I think Republicans will find they can live with this
you have to pick your battles you know
and the gay marriage ship has sailed
you can still see its billowing sails against the horizon, far away
far far away
while all around it reel the indignant albatrosses
>we treat people equally<
in failshitproggtardedamerica that ain't the game plan
you’re so cynical
I don’t mean that in a bad way
but I think there’s like a million more better things to use your cynicism powers on
My cynicism is large; it can dismiss multitudes.
>a million more better things to use your cynicism powers on<
focusing on kit kats
Cripes. I drop in to catch up with everyone and ‘feets is rubbing crap all over the thread.
“and the gay marriage ship has sailed”
he helmsman steered, the ship moved on;
Yet never a breeze up blew;
The mariners all ‘gan work the ropes,
Were they were wont to do:
They raised their limbs like lifeless tools —
We were a ghastly crew.
Indeed.
>But Obama’s not without ideas. He’s full of ideas, all of them out of date. All of them from the last century’s paradigms. He wanted to become like European social democracy at the very moment when it finally collapsed into the dust-bin of history. He hankered after the ideals of ‘progressivism’ when it had already become reactionary. He is like a man who has saved all his life to buy a pair of bell-bottomed pants only to reach the required sum just when they were 40 years out of style. He’s at the store looking to buy them and can’t find them on the rack.<
link
when you walk through a storm keep your chin up high and don’t be afraid of the dark
at the end of a storm is a golden sky!
and the sweet silver song of a lark.
>and the sweet silver song of a baracky
lark.Patience is a
virtueskill.Casting Crowns – Thrive
That kind of equality is for people grown in hatcheries.
you’re over-thinking it
Or you’re over-sentimentalizing it emo boy.
no I’m looking at it with the steely gaze of a pikachu what has taken careful stock of America’s past present and future, a pikachu what knows in his heart that what’s been lost is lost, that all we can do now is be Americans, together, however subjugated we might all be, cause of the chains of fascism bind us all equally
> we treat people equally<
bye bye black/wetback affirmative action/disparitive impact
>, cause of the chains of fascism bind us all equally <
that "little debbie" eric holder says no.
well he’s an evil fucking piece of shit
Well, some chains are worn more stylishly than others.
Is denying nature foolish or evil?
I’m just going to flat out steal this, beause it’s late and I’m tired:
Or buggering each other. Or treating men like women and women like men, or keeping a highly infectious (contagious, whatever), highly lethal disease out of the country, or….
i heart chains!
griefer is going to staunchly come to the aid of those people who are fired because of being Christian or Jews or when the Government starts destroying those churches and temples that will not conform to its definition of allowable religiousness in addition to private businesses.
just like he staunchly defended Brendan Eich
You’re assuming Darleen that his busy schedule of fighting for bestialism and polyamory etc. because fairness and equality will allow for standing up for religious liberty.
> however subjugated we might all be, cause of the chains of fascism bind us all equally<
eff u and yourAlice in chains – Mtv unplugged
i switched to Pale Moon cause of Brendan Eich
which is kind of crappy
it hangs a lot
New Democrat identity group aborning, soon to demand voting & marriage rights.
happyfeet says October 7, 2014 at 10:53 pm i switched to Pale Moon cause of Brendan Eich
What’s sad is you likely think that’s some sort of genuine act on your part.
May you get what you wish for, griefer.
there’s not really a whole lot you can do if someone decides not to fight for himself and just resigns really
but I stopped using firefox
mostly
I think i still use it for like HBO
what more was i supposed to do exactly?
what did you do?
what did Darleen do?
what did Jessa Duggar do?
And what about Marco Rubio?
At least I stood up and got a new browser. I stood tall. Later I probably sat down to work on the computer or eat some pasta salad or whatever. But my first reaction was to stand tall.
Ah, defensive counteraccusations. Typical.
i threw out all my herbal tea packet thingies I had cause i never really drank it
my friend F brought it over
it was dandelion and some other kind what started with an “e”
maybe someday I’ll buy some more, but I kinda doubt it
i’ve always kinda wanted to do the loose-leaf tea thing though
in chicago i should be close to an argo
i’m sure they can set a pikachu up
‘feets, you go ahead, take your ‘maiden’ voyage around the ‘horn. Some timely advice..
If people don’t like marriage what’s only between one man and one woman, they should just not get one.
The re–branding solution to all problems.
‘feet is missing the whole point of “how you get there matters”. I personally don’t worry about gay marriage because I do not think it concerns enough people to have an impact, however, I am concerned about the constitution and the rule of law. Prop 8 was the law of the land. Win the hearts and minds of the people of California and overturn it properly.
I also think someone has a right to refuse to create a gay wedding cake in the same a way others have a right to refuse to bake a birthday cake for a kid named Hitler.
Missing the point? He’s aiming 90 degrees away from it, on purpose.
i heart porpoise burble!
yes, I should have put missing in quotes.
Sloop John Boink
Team R forced this into court by passing prima facie anti-gay laws drenched in hate and prejudice
Now they whine and now they cry to see the ship go sailing by
Lessons learned?
We’ll see.
The only thing drenched in hate around here is a yellow Pokemon.
By your own logic, griefer, your opposition to Obama can only be caused by racism. Go out and come back in again.
Prima-facie anti- X laws dripping hate and prejudice. Why? Because you don’t like it? Because it’s not fair? Because any viewpoint that differs from your own is illegitimate and motively suspect?
Really, that’s the kind of thinking that keeps us from keeping out the Ebola, that keeps us keeping Israel on a leash, that keeps us from making the rubble bounce.
By the griefer’s own logic, he is Obama.
i’m almost done with my braces just 10 more weeks!
I’ll be in chicago then
but like in late December early January I’ll come back and live in LA for like a month to finish up my super sparkly hollywood smile
after that I’ll be on a budget
IIRC that’s backwards, definition of marriage laws were passed in reaction to judicial activism (Hawaii first ?) . No one would have seen the need to write such a law unless someone challenged what was already established law.
DOMA was bi-partisan and signed by Clinton.
Mass. if I remember correctly.
But who can say anymore. By this time next year, we’ll be deep into the polygamy fight and no one will remember a time when Oceania wasn’t at war with East-Asia.
Kind of like how, from the Regime’s point of view, all the effort to force them to keep Ebola out of the country keeps people from noticing they let the very polio-like non-Polio Enterovirus D-68 into the country.
polygamy yuck I disdain polygamy
but it’s an out of sight out of mind trailer park issue really
Mr. bear as far as I seen most of the court decisions involve rulings what say you can’t arbitrarily ban gay marriage without a good reason because of the discrimination and the people what are all about banning gay marriage can’t come up with any good reasons for their arbitrary bans what do the prejudice on gay people
Team R has never even acknowledged that gay people even should have formalized relationships what let them navigate America’s increasingly byzantine maze of regulation and other governmental and economic caprice
they put that they were against even civil unions in their platfor for awhile
they were so consumed with their hatred that they were not leading on the issue they were abdicating and worse, they chortled and preened about how the politics of the issue favored them
for awhile they put gay marriage on every ballot they could find
they don’t do that anymore
they don’t do that anymore
they don’t do that
anymore
The same could be said about gay marriage as recently as the day before yesterday.
*platform* i mean
If the sex of the persons seeking to marry is “arbitrary,” how much more arbitrary is the number of persons in the marriage?
Why are anti-polyamory? Is it because you’re drenched in hate and prejudice?
i think polygamy is antithetical to enhancing prosperity and building wealth
plus it’s a low class thing generally
And we all know what “think” is normative, given that you’re the most ordinary, run-of-the-mill unspecial snowflake since Gary Cooper played John Doe.
if you eat all your snacks now you won’t have any for later
I think that is correct, the courts created a circular argument in classic “catch-22” style and dared anyone to try to break the circle. The key of course was calling something “discrimination” that was not. Marriage is between one man and one woman with no regards to sexual orientation.
I do not think their was ever any strong opposition to civil unions. Opposition come from the court trying to legislate a new definition of marriage from the bench. The “Hater” is a cartoon character convenient for marketing purposes.
Or in this case, the cartoon hater is a marketer convenient for mischaracterizing purposes.
yeah well it’s nice this argument is pretty much a done deal now
I know I’m sure glad
>this argument is pretty much a done deal now<
what whine goes with judicial fiat
There will always be Traditional Marriage©®. Gay marriage? Why ?
The Deciders have decided. All hail the Deciders for showing us the Way which leads to the End of History.
it sure was an adventure huh
but here we are
we live in one of them countries where gay people can get married, all of us do
and it’s fucking awesome
>where gay people can get married, all of us do<
i find marriage gay
Gay people could always get married. But only royalty felt compelled to do so.
>Gay people could always get married<
true. this is mostly about " western civ has gotto go"
I think it would be fucking awesome to live in a country where judges didn’t legislate.
Faust thought his deal was fucking awesome as well.
Faust bit off more than he could chew I think
The hepatic hamster might consider the “how you get there” implications of this exchange.
>Faust bit off more than he could chew I think<
try kit kats @ 25 F
whoa… hope I’m doing it right —
my attempt to explaining intentionalism
Ebola (And Polio?): Just FUBARing Around
NOTE: These posts are not an attempt to be comprehensive in coverage of the Ebola story. They just contain some items that have caught my eye [which is still not hemorrhaging blood, I’m happy to report — that only happens when I look at Nancy Pelosi]…
>my attempt to explaining intentionalism<
good luck with that there
ruining class news™
CNN and Fox News Polls Both Show Roberts Moving Ahead of the Fake “Independent” Democrat Orman in Kansas
PBS’s NOVA just aired a good episode explaining how those Americans survived Ebola because of Z-MAP (Z-MAPP?), and the way it works to block the virus from getting into and taking over cells.
We need to get those marijuana growers to turn their greenhouses over to tobacco production. Toot Sweet.
> over to tobacco production. Toot Sweet.<
did duncan smoke? also do smokers catch it? oh my ? to be axed
smoke a cig smoke ebola would be crazy but it might be true. oh carry on.
Jonah giveth:
Aaand Jonah taketh away:
Stupid be the name of evenhandedness.
Team R forced this into court by passing prima facie anti-gay laws drenched in hate and prejudice
*snipped after the first lie*
Z-Mapp consists of three anti-bodies that prevent the Ebola virus from attaching itself to the cell wall. They grow it in tobacco by infecting the tobacco plant with a retrovirus.
There’s probably some very technical stuff involving concentrating and purifying the antibody-laden tobacco virus involved as well.
science is so neat
“science!” not so much
>There’s probably some very technical stuff involving concentrating and purifying the antibody-laden tobacco virus involved as well.<
just remember you are dealing with effin' the proggtarded
effin’ the proggtarded sounds too much like bugchasing.
Evan, the Proggtarded Boffin — rejected “The Simpsons” side character #43,109
And what, pray tell, has Sir Thomas More to teach our Vicar of Bray?
One problem is that all these companies that have experimental anti-viral drugs are small and don’t have huge resources. If you follow the regular progression through the FDA system and get certified you have some legal protections if problems arise later and time to find out if there is some way around the problem or if some precautionary warning is needed.
If an relatively untested drug is put into large scale use before extensive human testing is done and a problem arises the entire company could be wiped out even if the drug does work in many or most cases. What they are waiting on is the FDA to take on the responsibility for any problems that arise and assurances that if they do happen it will not make it impossible to do real trials in the regular fashion later with this or a revised drug.
Jonah Goldberg has been hanging around Rich Lowry for too long and has, as a result, become a pussy, too.
[I knew he was done for when he got married and his new wife didn’t change her last name to his.]
To be fair, up in Fairbanks Gavora is a revered name. Not quite as revered as, say, E.T. Barnette, but…
I still like the guy, but I do get tired of all the Short Idiot’s Introductory Guide to Persuasive Writing 101 for Dummies crap.
I’d like to ask him for a real example of Conservatives attempting to impose “conservative” values by fiat. A real example, mind you, not one proferred by liberals in full theocrat! apoplexy.
Kind of like how every time I see that smarmy sonofabitch Larry Pressler talk about how he’ll take the best ideas of both Democrats and Republicans to Washington, I’d like to ask him to name one good idea the Democratic side of the aisle has had in the last fifty years.
I could list the best ideas of both parties, but one set of them would be strictly for comedy relief.
Sadly, the other set would mostly be more than 20 years old.
The best ideas are timeless. People who, instead of seeking answers, question authority for the sake of asking questions tend to shit where they eat.
As even a passing familiarity with the whole sordid history of collectivism ought to tell you.
Funny, I just finished having one of those FB arguments with a woman and her FB commentariat (some of whom were having some trouble remembering what forum we were in, and what was being discussed) wherein I was told that whether or not I was being racist was not up to me, it was up to whoever was listening to me.
I gave up right before asking what happened if they disagreed with each other? Who was right then?
I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer as far as these discussions are concerned, but there are a whole lot of people out there that can’t seem to see the difference between deliberate and accidental racism. “I didn’t intend to be racist” doesn’t mean you weren’t. But if you said something that was interpreted incorrectly, and that interpretation isn’t amended, then the listener has no business at all calling you racist for what they thought you said. These two distinct ideas were, in the minds of my interlocutors, joined as one.
And of course, that made me racist.
I could be completely wrong about this, but I don’t see how.
I was told that whether or not I was being racist was not up to me, it was up to whoever was listening to me
Why is this limited to race? Why shouldn’t they believe this regarding all conversation? What I believe you said rules over what you meant. You said you wanted cake for dessert, I am sure you meant pie.
You should have responded by saying that assertion sounded racist to you.
And then demanded the right to do a touchdown dance in her end zone.
Slart
Never underestimate the hostility of people who refuse to consider anything outside their Fortress of Stupidity.
This is the answer I got when I said “Do laws write themselves? How do you know you’re look[ing] at a written law and not mere marks made by a mouse scurrying across the paper with inky paws? When *I* want to communicate with *you* I can grunt, point, gesture or use WORDS (signs) that you will either use to grasp my INTENT or not. If you don’t grasp my intent, it is either because I have failed at adequately signaling or you wish to pretend to understand and you then make up your own meaning. ”
I’m shocked this person can actually feed himself, let alone manipulate a keyboard.
FB
That’s your problem right there. Never before has there been a device designed to meld thoughts to proper specs, and punish nonconformity to those specs with public humiliation.
I’d rather run my hand in a garbage disposal than have a FB account.
“I’m glad I’m a man, and so is Lola.”
Darleen, you should ask the ass if he’s joking. Tell’em you read it twice and still aren’t sure.
Popping out to aver that the widespread confusion Americans evince regarding the non-strategy-strategy now revealed by American inaction concerning the Kurd city of Kobani might be avoided if only those confused Americans would look carefully at the deeds of the ClownDisaster administration where the nation of Iran is concerned, as in contrast to the words of the ClownDisaster administration where the (former) nations of Syria and Iraq are concerned.
Just think of ClownCatastrophe’s foreign policy as one might a roman á clef, with Iran in the role of the clef.
Suddenly nearly all the contradictions will disappear.
can you say yemen?
Deadly Attack in Yemen Adds to Fears Over Sunni Extremists
> killing more than 40 people and adding to fears that Sunni extremists were mobilizing new attacks against a Shiite rebel group that took control of Sana last month.<
>There are actual threats to the homeland out there, including ISIS, but virtually all that we’re seeing in the media at the moment is political theater and the accumulation of serious systemic problems within the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
And much of this nonsense is going to get more Americans killed.<
link
Yeah, man.
I’ll tell you exactly why: because they believe that their racial identity gives them some kind of privileged position of judgment over what I really meant.
Late in the conversation, some dude jumped in and declared my position on semantic was irrelevant and out of bounds.
It was about then that I realized that the question of what a statement really means (in other words: semantics) being out of bounds meant that the possibility of any kind of communication was hopelessly low, so I vacated the discussion.
God Bless Paul De Mann, Michel Foucault and Jaques Derrida
the poor benighted fools took Martin Heidegger and Friedrich Nietzsche seriously.